I Hubble relation to Scale Factor

AI Thread Summary
In a hypothetical Universe where the Hubble parameter is constant, the scale factor can be derived using the equation H(t) = dot(a)/a, leading to exponential growth. Calculating with a Hubble parameter of 70 km/s/Mpc suggests that the Universe was about one third of its current size 14 billion years ago. However, this raises a contradiction regarding the Hubble time, as it implies a constant Hubble time of 14 billion years, which should not align with a smaller scale factor. The discussion highlights the need to derive the scale factor from the Friedmann Equations for a more accurate understanding. The confusion stems from misinterpretation of the curriculum, emphasizing the complexity of learning cosmology alongside a full-time job.
TheMercury79
Messages
24
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
Comparing sizes now and then
Imagine a Universe where the Hubble parameter is truly a constant, in both space and time.
How much smaller would such a Universe be 14 billion years ago compared to today?

Using the Hubble parameter in terms of scale factor: ##H(t) = \frac{\dot{a}}{a}## leads to
the differential equation: $$\frac{da}{dt}=a~H(t)$$
Solivng for the scale factor yields an exponential growth relation:$$a(t) = a(0)e^{Ht}$$

(##H(t) = H## since H is constant in this Universe and so it's not necessary to use the Hubble parameter
as a function of time)

If we use ##H = 70 kms^-1Mpc^-1##, current time ##t=14\times10^9~y## and initial time 14 Gy ago is ##t_0=0##, then$$\\$$
##Ht = 70~kms^{-1}~Mpc^{-1} * \frac{1}{3.09\times10^{19}}~Mpc~km^{-1} * (3600 * 24 *365.25 * 14\times10^9)~s##

This makes ##Ht## roughly equal to 1 and ##a(14)\approx a(0)e^1##
Therefore $$a(14)\approx 2.72a(0)$$

This, however, seems like a really small number, indicating the Universe was about one third of its current size
14 billion years ago for a "Constant Hubble Universe"
Also a value of 70 for the Hubble parameter corresponds to a Hubble time of 14 billion years. And if H(t) is constant then 14 billion years ago would have the same Hubble time of 14 billion years, it can't be one third of the current size and have the same Hubble time, shouldn't this Hubble time be zero 14 billion years ago?

Something(s) doesn't add upp in my approach and I'm trying to think of where I'm off
 
Space news on Phys.org
Well I think your beginning is wrong. You should derive the scale factor ##a(t)## from the Friedmann Equations. Not by using only $$H = \dot{a} / a$$.

From my knowledge, the only close thing that does look like your solution is universe with lambda only which has a scale factor of
$$a(t) = e^{H_0t}$$ however here $$H_0 = \sqrt{\frac{8 \pi G ε_Λ} {3c^2}} = \sqrt{Λ/3}$$

(Also called de Sitter universe)
 
  • Like
Likes TheMercury79
TheMercury79 said:
Imagine a Universe where the Hubble parameter is truly a constant, in both space and time.
##H = const## means that the universe is expanding exponentially. It's the case if the Cosmological Constant ##\Lambda > 0## and the matter density ##\rho = 0##, which is expected for the very far future of our universe.
 
  • Like
Likes TheMercury79
I feel kinda stupid now, The Friedmann equations is in the next chapter. I was under the impression this should be solved with contents of the current chapter. But I see now I've read the curriculum wrong.
I have a full time job and taking this course on the side is really stressful. I just knew I was totally off on this.
Tnx for answers.EDIT: Actually I see now I haven't read the curriculum wrong. It's just not very clear, one place says this and that chapter, another place it says only this chapter. Huh
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Arman777
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?

Similar threads

Back
Top